Nostr notes by

📅 Original date posted:2012-07-23 📝 Original message:On ...

2023-06-07T10:25:08Z

In reply to nevent1q…l26p
_________________________

📅 Original date posted:2012-07-23
📝 Original message:On Sun, Jul 22, 2012 at 11:37 PM, grarpamp <grarpamp at gmail.com> wrote:
> Given a testbed: Pentium 4 1.8GHz single core, 2GB ram, FreeBSD 8,
> disk is geli aes-128 + zfs sha-256, bitcoin 0.6.3, Tor proxy,
> An estimate is made that by the end of the year bitcoin will
> completely overrun the capabilities of this reasonable class of
> machines.

That's actually slower-than-Atom class hardware you're running on
there, with full disk encryption on what's a very CPU and IO-heavy
workload. From the benchmarks I remember, your CPU is literally slower
than the first generation of single-core netbooks - the ones reviewers
recommended against using full disk encryption on because they just
didn't have enough CPU power to manage it. It's not surprising that
Bitcoin isn't usable on that setup.

📅 Original date posted:2012-02-01 📝 Original message:On ...

2023-06-07T03:03:47Z

In reply to nevent1q…9fcw
_________________________

📅 Original date posted:2012-02-01
📝 Original message:On Wed, Feb 1, 2012 at 4:15 PM, Luke-Jr <luke at dashjr.org> wrote:
> On Wednesday, February 01, 2012 10:58:28 AM Michael Grønager wrote:
>> Your CMake cannot find boost - use ccmake or cmake-gui to help it with the
>> location.
>
> I didn't see anything useful in ccmake. Boost is in the standard locations
> (/usr/include/boost/ and /usr/lib/libboost*

The error about not finding boost is a red herring and as far as I can
tell bogus. The problem is that it finds Qt and tries to configure
some Qt code that doesn't seem to have actually been released. Try
http://pastebin.ca/2108766

>> Btw what platform are you using ?
>
> Gentoo

Also, you'll probably need to set BDB_INCLUDE_PATH manually or it
won't find db.h

Hope this helps,
Aidan

📅 Original date posted:2011-09-14 🗒️ Summary of this ...

2023-06-07T02:25:37Z

In reply to nevent1q…3e2a
_________________________

📅 Original date posted:2011-09-14
🗒️ Summary of this message: Proposal to modify getwork code to discourage blocks with stale timestamps. Majority adoption would prevent cartels from manipulating difficulty.
📝 Original message:On Wed, Sep 14, 2011 at 3:45 PM, Gavin Andresen <gavinandresen at gmail.com> wrote:
> Modify the getwork code to build on the second-from-tip block if the
> first-on-tip block is on the discouraged list.
>
> Assuming a majority of pools/miners adopt the "discourage blocks with
> stale timestamps" rule, that should squash any incentive for cartels
> to try to start playing with difficulty-- you would have to have 50+%
> power to start, or you risk producing mostly orphan blocks.
Of course, if only a small percentage of mining power adopts this
scheme, everyone that does so will presumably be harming themselves by
doing so since they're essentially increasing the odds that the next
block they mine will become invalid...